Obviously you have decided to make this into a different argument than the one you expressed to Jerry...which prompted me to reply to your post to Jerry.
"No...sex is not consent to have a child." This was "your" reply to Jerry. I agreed with you on that point. Now you say...apparently I'm not onboard? Really?
Even if there was some strange, but unenforceable, related law created out of magical thinking... it could only state that "sex is consent to conception". But such a law would only have limited effect even it was included with a law that prohibits abortion. And we both know that not even these laws would prevent abortions. Similar laws existed prior to Roe v. Wade and didn't stop abortions. Laws that prohibit abortion only prohibit "legal abortions".
So now you take my comments out of another argument with Captain Adverse about "coercion"... and create it as though it was my part of my response as "being on board with you". Nice, but no dice.
The issue at hand isn't a binary one. There are many more players involved in reproductive issues that just two people. Variable circumstances and outcomes will dictate on how many players will be drawn into a conception between two people.
Since the "current laws, which are created by "government" makes it possible for a woman to have "conditional" unilateral control over the fate of a conception...therefore "a woman" isn't coercing a man...if her choice is to carry a conception to full term.
Lawmakers create laws which force him TO MAKE CHOICES (plural). Therein lies the coercion, which a man might be confronted with.
Even a woman's unilateral control over the fate of a conception has conditions created by laws, which can force, or if you prefer, coerce her into making choices if a woman brings a conception to full term.
Laws designed to create restrictions of behaviors of choice are coercive. Laws designed to prohibit specific behaviors are indeed coercive. They are coercive because laws attach legal consequences.
An Opt-Out law would remove a man's need to make an informed choice. It would exempt a man from the legal consequences - which affects the welfare of a child...which is powerless to provide for itself and has no legal voice to provoke actions to protect its very existence.
If a conception brought to full term - a child will automatically create coercive conditions for both a woman and a man. Laws that are designed to ensure the welfare of a child is based on: A child cannot provide for its own hierarchy of needs, which include, but it not limited to food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc.
Even if both the man and woman who co-create a child... are resistant to coercive laws which will require them to furnish a child's hierarchy of needs, their resistance to comply will not remove them from financial obligations to the state. The state will become the legal conservator of a child. The state will legally pursue reimbursement (in part or whole) from both or either parent...the costs incurred by the state to maintain a child.
There is no way to create an "Opt-out law" that would be "equitable". Legislative bodies will never create any laws that opt-out a man from legal and financial responsibilities.
There are, however, laws, which say that a court can determine if a parent's rights can be terminated. If that event happens, then the person whose rights are terminate will no longer have legal or financial obligations. That's as close to "opt-out" we'll ever see.